I think I have finally "put my finger on it"
- Thread starter Treebore
- Start date
Vigilance
Explorer
AllisterH said:
I was speaking strictly of the book-books, the ones without words.
Howard's fiction is more available than ever right now.
Not only that, it's actually just HIS stuff, in the order HE wrote it, no pastiches mixed in, nothing included in chronological order, etc.
The comics are a nice side bonus, and it is nice to see that the comics are now being based off of Howard's actual work rather than pastiches (another sign that Howard is getting more respect), but I was not speaking of the popularity of things BASED on his work, but the popularity of his actual writings.
What you're doing is essentially the same thing as if I said "Dumas is a great writer and is more popular than ever" and you pointed out that the comic adaptation of Man in the Iron Mask wasn't selling very well.
It's apples and oranges. The appeal of a comic adaptation doesn't reflect on a writer's merits or his popularity as a writer.
There was a bad Scarlet Letter adaptation awhile back starring Demi Moore.
Should we thus conclude that Hawthorne's popularity is on the wane, because the movie failed miserably?
I think not.
malladin said:Thats a sweeping statement in no way true of all posts criticising the changes
Again this is only a perspective, yours, others peoples are perfectly valid just because they disagree and have different attitudes to why the game is beibng changed.
Again not everybody agrees on this, though it's blinkered to deny any problems in 3rd ed-grappling anyone. Because you think the above is true and choose to interpret the information being released in relation to this perspective does not make it an exclusively valid position, therefore allowing the dismissal of other peoples interpretations. 4th ed may be great or stink, we won't know until we see it. Peoples opinions cannot be dismissed just because of your interpretative framework, when you have no more facts than others. Its all opinion and subjective, one subjective opinion is no more valid than another based on the same facts. Some interpretations are better supported or argued, but it cannot be argued that someones opinion is wrong just because its not yours, when neither group knows more than the other. I can see how Dr Awkward defines where ther's opinion as opposed to reactionism and recognises the difference in how to treat both. Blanket statements of how it is and why it's great however are just as bad as reactionary negativism.
All you essentially are saying is that these are my opinions. I have read everything posted by developers and many of their statements the nay sayers are ignoring key facts or not reading them altogether. I am connected with the gaming industry and we have done large scale events tied with D&D.
When a game has to many barriers to entry for its target market, it disrupts the flow and easy of adaption of new players into that game. One of WOW's major strengths is it has little or no barriers to entry for a new player, and then as it reaches each barrier it holds their hand to it. The only really area WOW does not intuitively remove barriers is its end game content.
Dungeons and Dragons (and rpgs and the hobby game industry) has a number of barriers to entry for adaptation of new customers. A few of these are:
* Requiring a DM who knows the rules to play
* Having a peer group who already knows the game to play
* Having a good gaming experience so you want to keep playing
* Initimdation by size of the rule books and amount of rules to learn to start playing
* Initimidation by the not knowing where to start playing
* Not being overwhelmed or lost by odd or counter-intuitive rules.
This is just a handful of the barrier D&D faces, aside from being a pen and paper game in an electronic age. That is just for new players at that. Veteran players have their own issues too.
First off, D&D does not support traditional mythic fantasy archetypes because of the over dependacy on magic items (i.e. the christmas tree effect). The lack of sold challenging play at each level (instead of the sweet spot). The difficulty of power creep and high level play. Creating encounters easily. Complicated monster creation that wastes time prepping instead of playing. I can go on and on. These are all real problems in the way of players spending more time playing instead of metagaming and min/maxing rules.
Second, the Digital Initative places D&D in a place where games can be available online 24/7, that groups seperated by geography can easily keep playing together and where those who are new to the game can get a 15 or 30 day trial and hop on and start playing over the virtual game table with people who have open games. It is no different than the connectivity that yahoo games or mmo's offer a group of friends who become seperated or a solo player meeting people online. This is a new era for D&D if this works.
Everything I have listed here, from gaining new players, to giving smoother, faster and more fun game play, to helping DMs get up and running and world building sooner, is all addressed in the various videos and articles coming out of WOTC. They are being very honest with the fans. And so far everything they have said is true.
Honestly, the other element the nay sayers are ignoring is the experience and professionalism of WOTC. They have a strong track record with both D&D and Magic. They have only made these games better and better with most of the products they release for them.
Personally, I think the nay sayers need to relax, look at all of the information and then wait for the books to release. I really think we will be plesantly surprised.
malladin
Explorer
Najo said:
And all your saying is your opinion, albeit backed up by reasoning based on what you perceive. Its your sweeping statements that negative opinions ignore facts or are uninformed I find offensive to people. I don't really care about 4th ed, too busy with Savage Worlds, and am not even arguing about what was or wasn't right about 3rd. But I find it hypocritical to dismiss other peoples opinions' as uniformed because you disagree, when you only have the same information as them, or as above dismiss even the fact their using the same information. As a gamer I simply find it sad that people in a community are dismissing other peoples ideas simply because they differ on interpretation and apply a reason, there's not enough information, unequally. Thats my point, the actualties of the argument i'll leave to people who care, but as a gamer I have to point out what I see as negative influences on how we communicate with each other. Still could be worse and I know, i've been to the Wizards forums
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
Treebore said:
I guess its fair to be unsure. I'm just reading the wind blowing in other directions on this particular issue. I think we'll be safe. It just wont be fighter, cleric, mage, thief, but rather defender, controller, striker and leader as optimal. No class is required (and indeed not even a role), but having someone in each role will be a big boon to party synergy, and each class fits into a given role.
The tough guy will still be needed, ti just wont automaticaly be a fighter... maybe a barbarian or a paladin or swordmage (or whatever its called). You still want your fast and precise guy to go in and get some dastardly killing blows when least expected... just its not always the thief. Maybe you've got a ranger with some wicked called shots, or a warlock who lobs invocations that prey on the weak and the weary.
Instead of a cleric curing damage, maybe your warlord will have orders and formation tactics that prevent damage, allow people to parry attacks for each other through increased team work or provide damage reduction (after all, HP's are abstract anyways) to cut down on the necessity for a walking bandaid.
The goal of each role remains consistent with the 4 man party ocnept, just the methods they use to accomplish them differ. I'm fairly optimistic, at least in regards to the design concept. Naturally we'll have to wait for the execution.
